Tag Archives: Gulf of Mexico

Environmentalists aren’t too pleased but petroleum companies are: President Obama and his administration will permit Shell to begin drilling this summer off the Alaskan coast, in the Arctic Ocean.

Earlier this year, Obama permitted offshore drilling in an area of the Atlantic Coast. But throughout his presidency, Obama has continued to introduce restrictive measures on carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions. Now he’s trying to appease both sides by allowing Shell to set up shop in the Arctic Ocean — specifically in the Chukchi Sea — but with some limitations. The Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will be highly attentive to preserving the Arctic ecosystem and Alaska Native ethnic practices; Shell will be held to strict safety guidelines.

Environmentalists are more nervous than ever, dreading that drilling in the Arctic Ocean will lead to another oil spill, worse than the Gulf of Mexico spill in 2010, where millions of cylinders of oil poured into the Gulf and killed 11 workers. Yet, Shell was drilling into an area of the Gulf of Mexico that was almost 5,000 feet deep — the Chukchi Sea is only 140 feet deep, which will present fewer difficulties.

Experts from both sides contend that drilling in the Chukchi Sea is very risky: the area is isolated, without access to roads, cities, or ports for many, many miles. These circumstances don’t exactly lend themselves to speedy cleanup and relief if another oil spill were to occur. In order for the Interior Department to authorize the drilling, Shell had to apply for all the necessary state and federal drilling permits. Previously, Shell was given approval to drill in the Arctic Ocean during the summer of 2012. Shell hadn’t crossed all its T’s and dotted all its I’s though: the company suffered from many safety and operational issues, and even had an oil rig run ashore.

The Interior Department has strived to rectify US drilling regulations, particularly by only approving drilling during the summer and in shallow water. With this plan moving forward, it’s certain that Obama is trying to balance the scales and maintain harmony between environmentalists, and energy and petroleum companies. It is our hope that Shell covers all its bases and we don’t have another BP oil disaster on our hands.

President Obama has introduced a plan that would allow drilling in parts of the Atlantic Coast, while simultaneously putting an end to any drilling in certain areas in Alaska.

The administration’s proposal concentrates on Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, and will sell areas 50 miles off the states’ coasts to oil companies beginning in 2021. Oil companies have been denied access to these areas in the Atlantic Ocean for years, particularly since drilling in those areas was banned in 2008. Additionally, the proposal includes leases for regions in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska coast. Leases will be sold between 2017 and 2022.

Many politicians cited the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as a reason not to move forward with the proposal, which remains the biggest oil spill of its kind in the US. Since then, regulations on offshore drilling have not improved; Congress has yet to adopt new laws that would make drilling safer. Many believe that drilling in these regions is a misguided way of developing energy — and acquiring energy independence — in the US.

However, politicians in the Southeastern states are backing Obama’s plan, asserting that the new venture will boost the economy by creating jobs and encouraging investments. Currently, the US is experiencing a flood in oil, which has caused oil and gas prices to significantly drop.

Areas chosen to be leased and sold are subject to change. Oil generation from offshore drilling supplies 16 percent of the US’s oil. In order to find oil and gas deposits under the ocean, firms will have to run seismic imaging surveys; a process that can take years, the firms attach seismic air guns to their boats that they will drag for miles on the ocean surface. The guns then radiate air and sound, which assists in mapping 2D and 3D images of the ocean floor.

Since June 2011, environmentalists have been rallying together to stop the approval of the 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline — XL meaning express line — which would send 800,000 barrels a day of crude oil from Canada sand formations to Texas refineries. Though it is unknown if Obama will authorize the project, environmentalists have taken their protests directly to the him.

In addition to transporting hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil per day, the pipeline will also involve an oil extraction process that expends more greenhouse gasemissions than any other means of production. Those in favor of the pipeline say that the oil will be transported regardless; without the pipeline, it would probably be carried by railway, which would cause more pollution.

The pipeline has been an issue that has banded all American environmentalists together, allowing climate change organizations, like 350.org, to grow to double its size in just two short years. People from all economic and financial backgrounds have donated time, energy and money to the cause, merging national and grassroots environmental groups who often argue over attention and resources.

Keystone XL would create a bypass to the Gulf of Mexico and would expand TransCanada’s current Keystone pipeline, which runs from Alberta to Nebraska, Illinois and Oklahoma; Keystone XL would be a more direct pipeline across the US, to Texas. TransCanada and ally American Petroleum Institute have taken the matter into their own hands by running TV and radio ads advocating the many jobs the pipeline will create.

Whether environmentalists’ protests are successful or not, it is easy to agree that the pipeline issue has forever changed American environmental politics, allowing various environmental groups to rally together, and forming a durable infrastructure.